United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to the Honorable Susan A. Davis,
House of Representatives
January 2011
MILITARY
PERSONNEL
Personnel and Cost
Data Associated with
Implementing DOD’s
Homosexual Conduct
Policy
GAO-11-170
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Accountability • Integrity • Reliability
Personnel and Cost Data Associated with
Implementing DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
Highlights of GAO-11-170, a report to the
Honorable Susan A. Davis, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study
From fiscal years 1994 through 2009,
the Department of Defense (DOD)
separated over 13,000 active military
servicemembers under its
homosexual conduct policy. These
separations represent about 0.37
percent of the 3.6 million members
separated for all reasons, including
expiration of terms of service and
retirement. In 2005, GAO reported on
the number of separated
servicemembers under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy who held
critical skills and the costs associated
with administering the policy from
fiscal years 1994 through 2003. GAO
was asked to examine data from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009 to
determine (1) the extent to which the
policy has resulted in the separation
of servicemembers with skills in
critical occupations and important
foreign languages and (2) the
services’ costs for certain activities
associated with administering the
policy. GAO obtained and analyzed
DOD personnel and cost data;
examined DOD regulations and
policy documents; and conducted
interviews with officials from the
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
the Defense Manpower Data Center,
and each of the military services.
GAO provided a draft of this report to
DOD for review and comment. DOD
did not have any comments on the
report.
View GAO-11-170 or key components.
For more information, contact Zina Merritt at
(202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov.
What GAO Found
According to GAO’s analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data, 3,664
servicemembers were separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy
from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Of the 3,664 separations, 1,458 of these
separated servicemembers held a critical occupation or an important foreign
language skill as determined by GAO and the services. More specifically, 1,442
(39 percent) of the servicemembers separated under the policy held critical
occupations, such as infantryman and security forces, while 23 (less than 1
percent) of the servicemembers held skills in an important foreign language,
such as Arabic or Spanish. Seven separated servicemembers held both a
critical occupation and an important foreign language skill. However, the
number of separated servicemembers with critical occupations could be an
underestimation because of a number of factors. For example, the Air Force
provided the occupations eligible for enlistment bonuses from fiscal years
2006 through 2009, but could not provide this information for fiscal years 2004
and 2005 because the Air Force’s data were incomplete.
Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about
$193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to
separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the
homosexual conduct policy. This $193.3 million comprises $185.6 million in
replacement costs and $7.7 million in administrative costs. The cost to recruit
and train replacements amounted to about $185.6 million. In calculating these
costs, GAO included variable costs, such as recruiting bonuses, and excluded
fixed costs, such as salaries and buildings, to the extent possible because
according to service officials there would likely be no significant increase in
fixed costs when recruiting and training a relatively small number of
replacement personnel. Each of the services tracks and maintains data in
different ways, which in some cases affected their ability to provide GAO with
only variable costs. For example, while the Army and Air Force could
disaggregate variable and fixed recruiting and training costs, the Navy could
not disaggregate variable and fixed recruiting and training costs, and the
Marine Corps could not disaggregate variable and fixed training costs. To the
extent that recruiting and training cost data provided by the services contain
fixed costs, this is an overestimation of replacement costs. Administrative
costs amounted to about $7.7 million and include costs associated with
certain legal activities, such as board hearings, and nonlegal activities, such as
processing separation paperwork. The Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps
provided GAO with administrative cost estimates; however, Navy officials
explained that changes in separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through
2009 prevented them from providing an accurate administrative cost estimate
in time for the data to be included in GAO’s analyses. Because the Navy did
not provide these data, GAO’s calculation is an underestimation of DOD’s
likely total administrative costs. Because of data limitations, GAO was unable
to determine the extent of the overestimation of the replacement costs, the
underestimation of the administrative costs, or the resulting net impact on
GAO’s total calculations.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
1
Background
Some Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct
Policy Held Skills in Critical Occupations or Important Foreign
Languages
Certain Costs Associated with Administering DOD’s Homosexual
Conduct Policy Can Be Calculated
18
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
28
Appendix II
General Information on Separated Servicemembers
38
Appendix III
Data on Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers
Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy
42
Appendix IV
Information on Critical Occupations and Important
Foreign Languages for Servicemembers Separated
under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
43
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
47
Appendix V
Related GAO Products
5
9
48
Tables
Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for
Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service,
from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 2: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Critical
Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Page i
6
11
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 3: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with IntelligenceRelated Critical Occupations Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy, by Service, from Fiscal Years
2004 through 2009
Table 4: Examples of Critical Occupations of Servicemembers
Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy across
All Services from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 5: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Important
Foreign Language Skills Separated under the Homosexual
Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 6: Languages Spoken by—and the Proficiency Levels of—
Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual
Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 7: Cost of Replacements for Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years
2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Millions)
Table 8: Cost of Recruiting Replacements for Servicemembers
Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Table 9: Cost of Training Replacements for Servicemembers
Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Millions)
Table 10: Administrative Costs of Separating Servicemembers
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years
2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Table 11: Legal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years
2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Table 12: Nonlegal Administrative Cost of Separating
Servicemembers under the Homosexual Conduct Policy
from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in
Thousands)
Table 13: Total Separations for All Reasons by Fiscal Year and
Service from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 14: Separation Reasons for Enlisted Servicemembers from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 15: Separation Reasons for Officers from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009
Table 16: Separations of Reserve and National Guard
Servicemembers for Homosexual Conduct, by Fiscal Year
and Military Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Page ii
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
38
39
40
42
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 17: Most Common Critical Occupations Held by Separated
Servicemembers, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009
Table 18: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Separated under
the Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in
Critical Occupations from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Table 19: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Who Held Skills in
Important Foreign Languages from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009
43
45
46
Figures
Figure 1: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by
Race from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Figure 2: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by
Rank, Gender, Length of Service, and Branch from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009
Figure 3: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in
Critical Occupations from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Figure 4: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated
under the Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in
Important Foreign Languages from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009
Figure 5: Services’ Cost of Administering DOD’s Homosexual
Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
(Dollars in Thousands)
7
8
12
17
19
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page iii
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
January 20, 2011
The Honorable Susan A. Davis
House of Representatives
Dear Ms. Davis:
In 1993, Congress enacted a law setting out the policy concerning
homosexuality in the armed forces. 1 This statute states that “the presence
in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to
engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high
standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are
the essence of military capability.” The law requires servicemembers to be
separated from the armed forces, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, if they meet certain criteria set forth in the law. 2
From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD)
separated over 13,000 active duty military servicemembers under the
homosexual conduct policy. These separations represent approximately
0.37 percent of the 3.6 million servicemembers separated for all reasons
during this period. 3 (For more information on total separations from fiscal
years 2004 through 2009, see app. II.)
In 2005, we reported on the number of separated servicemembers who
held skills in critical occupations and important foreign languages at the
time of separation and the costs associated with administering DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy for the period covering fiscal years 1994
through 2003. 4 You asked us to examine data from fiscal years 2004
through 2009. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) the
1
10 U.S.C. § 654.
2
For guidance implementing the law, see Department of Defense Instructions 1332.14,
Enlisted Administrative Separations (Aug. 28, 2008); 1332.30, Separation of Regular and
Reserve Commissioned Officers (Mar. 29, 2010); and 1304.26, Qualification Standards for
Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction (Sept. 20, 2005).
3
The 3.6 million servicemembers separated for all reasons during this period includes those
separated for expiration of term of service and retirement. If we excluded these types of
separations, the number of separations would be lower, and therefore the percentage of
separations because of homosexual conduct would be higher.
4
GAO, Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD’s
Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated, GAO-05-299 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 23, 2005).
Page 1
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
extent to which servicemembers with skills in critical occupations and
important foreign languages were separated under the policy and
(2) the services’ costs for certain activities associated with administering
the policy (i.e., recruiting and training replacements of separated
servicemembers and administrative processes associated with separating
servicemembers).
In conducting this audit, we obtained data from the Defense Manpower
Data Center (DMDC) 5 and each of the military services on active duty
separations under the homosexual conduct policy across all of the service
components—the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy—for the
period covering fiscal years 2004 through 2009. We also obtained the total
number of Reserve and National Guard component servicemembers
separated under the policy during the same period of time. 6 (See app. III.)
However, we did not include separated Reserve and National Guard
servicemembers in our analysis because according to DMDC, DOD only
collects data on separations for homosexual conduct for the active duty
members of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy.7 We determined
that the data provided by DOD and the services were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of presenting separations, personnel information for
separated servicemembers, and costs associated with administering the
homosexual conduct policy. These data were current as of November 30,
2010.
To determine the extent to which servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations and important foreign languages were separated under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy, we obtained data from DMDC on the
occupational specialties and foreign languages of the enlisted
servicemembers and officers separated under the policy. We interviewed
officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness and the offices within the services that are responsible for
managing occupational specialties, determining foreign language
5
DMDC serves as DOD’s human resource information source and a central source in
identifying, authenticating, authorizing, and providing information on DOD-affiliated
personnel.
6
These separations do not include servicemembers from Reserve and National Guard
components of the military services who were in active duty status for 31 or more
consecutive days.
7
According to a DMDC official, the official tracking of active duty separations for
homosexual conduct began in 1997.
Page 2
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
requirements, and administering bonus programs to identify critical
occupations and important foreign languages. Based on these discussions,
we and the services determined for the purposes of this report that an
occupation was “critical” if a financial incentive was provided under the
enlistment, reenlistment, and retention bonus programs or if it was
included in service-specific critical occupations lists. 8 We also relied on
the services to designate the critical occupations that they considered to
be intelligence related. Through our interviews, we and the services
determined for the purposes of this report that a foreign language was
“important” if a financial incentive was provided under the foreign
language proficiency bonus program. Using these criteria, we analyzed
separation data to determine the number of servicemembers who held
critical occupations and were proficient in important foreign languages at
the time of their separation.
To calculate the costs associated with administering DOD’s homosexual
conduct policy, we interviewed officials from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and offices within the
active services that are responsible for personnel policy, recruitment and
training budgets, servicemember pay and benefits, separation processing,
legal affairs, and discharge reviews to identify the cost of recruiting and
training through initial occupational training of the replacements of
servicemembers separated under the policy and the administrative costs
of processing the separations of servicemembers under the policy. To
determine replacement costs, we obtained and analyzed recruiting and
training cost data from each of the services. To the extent possible, we
used variable costs and excluded fixed costs to calculate the services’
costs to recruit and train replacements because, given the magnitude of
DOD’s overall forces, there would likely be no significant increase in fixed
costs (e.g., instructor salaries) when replacing a relatively small number of
personnel (i.e., approximately 400 to 700 servicemembers per year). 9 We
analyzed these data to calculate the costs of recruiting and training
through initial occupational training for the replacements of
servicemembers separated under the policy. To the extent that recruiting
8
Because of the manner in which the Navy assigns its recruits to occupations, the Navy was
unable to provide complete data on the occupations of Navy servicemembers separated
under the policy. Thus, the reported number of Navy separated servicemembers who held
skills in critical occupations could be an underestimate.
9
For the purposes of this report, we define “fixed costs” as those that do not change with
output, as opposed to “variable costs” whose total varies directly with changes in output. In
the case of recruiting and training, the outputs are recruits and trainees, respectively.
Page 3
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
and training cost data provided by the services contain fixed costs, this
would result in an overestimation of replacement costs. To determine
administrative costs, we asked the military services to provide data on the
key tasks and personnel associated with the separation process, such as
paralegal work, attorneys’ and pastoral counseling of servicemembers, and
commanders’ inquiries. We analyzed data on these tasks and personnel,
along with military pay rates, to calculate the administrative costs of
processing the separations of servicemembers separated under the policy.
The Navy explained that it was not able to provide this information
because changes in separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through
2009 prevented Navy officials from providing an accurate administrative
cost estimate in time for the data to be included in our analyses. Because
the Navy was not able to provide this information, our calculation is an
underestimation of DOD’s likely total administrative costs. We were
unable to determine the extent of the overestimation of replacement costs,
the underestimation of administrative costs, or the resulting net impact on
our calculations.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 through January
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
Page 4
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Background
Homosexuality and the
Military
In November 1993, Congress enacted a law concerning homosexual
conduct in the armed forces and required the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations to implement that policy. 10 Following the enactment
of the law, DOD issued its implementing guidance, including Department
of Defense Instruction 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment,
Appointment, and Induction. Under that instruction, applicants for
enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to
reveal their sexual orientation, nor shall they be asked to reveal whether
they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is
received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or the
applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is homosexual or bisexual,
or words to that effect. This is generally referred to as the “Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell” policy. In exchange for the services’ silence (“don’t ask”) about
a person’s homosexuality prior to induction, gay and lesbian
servicemembers, as a condition of continued service, agree to silence
(“don’t tell”) about this aspect of their lives.
Separations for
Homosexual Conduct from
Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009
According to our analysis of DMDC data, 3,664 active duty
servicemembers were separated under the homosexual conduct policy
from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. (See table 1.) This figure represents
servicemembers who were on active duty at the time of their separation,
including members of the Reserve or National Guard components of the
military services who were on active duty for 31 or more consecutive days
before their dates of separation. These servicemembers are included in the
figure because according to DMDC, a servicemember in the Reserves or
National Guard who was separated after at least 31 consecutive days of
active duty service is considered to be an active duty separation.
10
10 U.S.C. § 654. DOD has recently released a study considering the homosexual conduct
policy. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (Repeal Act), Pub. L. No. 111-321, was
enacted on December 22, 2010. Under the Repeal Act, 10 U.S.C. § 654, the section of the
United States Code that sets out the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, will remain in effect until
60 days after the date that a number of requirements and certifications specified in the
Repeal Act are met by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and the President. At that time, the law would be repealed. The Repeal Act also specifies
that, in the event that those requirements and certifications are not met, the policy set out
at 10 U.S.C. § 654 will remain in effect.
Page 5
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 1: Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service,
from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Total
2004
Fiscal year
92
325
59
177
653
2005
88
386
74
177
725
2006
102
280
64
166
612
2007
91
302
74
160
627
2008
90
286
91
152
619
2009
77
195
75
81
428
Total
540
1,774
437
913
3,664
15
48
12
25
100
Percentage of total
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Of the 3,664 servicemembers separated from fiscal years 2004 through
2009, DOD granted “honorable” separations to 2,084 members (57
percent), “general (under honorable conditions)” separations to 369
servicemembers (10 percent), and “under other than honorable
conditions” separations to 95 servicemembers (3 percent). 11 DOD
classified the separation of 2 servicemembers (less than 1 percent) as “bad
conduct,” which is a type of punitive separation applicable to enlisted
personnel only. 12 DOD also granted “uncharacterized” or entry-level
separations to 1,037 servicemembers (28 percent), and classified 77
separations (2 percent) as “unknown or not applicable” for
servicemembers separated under the policy.
The following figures present demographic breakdowns for separated
servicemembers. Figure 1 shows the percentage of servicemembers
11
See Department of Defense Instruction 1336.05, Automated Extract of Active Duty
Military Personnel Records (July 29, 2009). At separation, DOD assigns a military service
characterization code to each individual’s service that represents an evaluation of a
servicemember's conduct and performance during his or her period of military service.
These characterizations include "honorable" (service reflected proper behavior and
proficient performance of duty); "under honorable conditions" (service reflected behavior
and performance that was short of honorable); "under other than honorable conditions"
(servicemember was convicted of a felony by civil authorities); "bad conduct" (conduct was
punished by a special or general court martial); "dishonorable" (conduct was punished by a
general court martial); and "uncharacterized" (servicemember served 6 months or less and
was assigned a separation reason of (1) entry level separation, (2) void enlistment or
induction, or (3) dropped from strength). Also, some servicemembers’ characterization is
classified as "unknown or not applicable."
12
See Manual for Courts-Martial, Rule 1003(b)(8)(C).
Page 6
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009 by race, and figure 2 shows other demographic information
for these servicemembers, including rank, length of service upon
separation, gender, and military branch.
Figure 1: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by Race from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
2%
Multiracial (64)
2%
Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander (74)
70%
White (2,564)
13%
3%
Other
(458)
American Indian
or Alaskan Native (97)
18%
3%
African
American
(642)
Asian (102)
3%
Unknown (121)a
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Notes: Percentage may not equal 100 because of rounding.
a
Data not available.
Page 7
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Figure 2: Separations under the Homosexual Conduct Policy by Rank, Gender,
Length of Service, and Branch from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Rank:
98% (3,599) Enlisted
2% (65) Officer
Gender:
66% (2,422) Male
34% (1,242) Female
Length of service:
17% (625) Less than 3 months
11% (394) 3 to 6 months
18% (657) 6 months to 1 year
19% (706) 1 to 2 years
35% (1,282) 2 years or more
Branch:
15% (540) Air Force
48% (1,774) Army
12% (437) Marine Corps
25% (913) Navy
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Differences between the
Current and Previous GAO
Report
In 2005, we reported on the number of servicemembers separated under
the policy who held skills in critical occupations and important foreign
languages and the costs of recruiting and training replacements for
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy for the
period covering fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. 13 However, the
information in the 2005 report cannot be compared to the information in
this report for two reasons. First, for this report, we asked the services to
provide the most current and complete guidance to help us determine
criteria for describing critical occupations and important foreign
languages. The services provided enlistment bonus lists, critical skills
retention bonus lists, service-specific critical occupations lists, and foreign
language proficiency bonus lists. We have added these criteria in order to
provide a more comprehensive picture of how the services described
critical occupations and important foreign languages from fiscal years
2004 through 2009. Second, in 2005, the services were unable to provide us
with the training costs of Marine Corps personnel, 14 the training costs of
13
GAO-05-299.
14
According to officials from the Marine Corps Training and Education Command, the
Marine Corps did not have detailed training cost data until fiscal year 2008.
Page 8
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
the medical professionals for each of the services, and the recruiting and
training costs of each service’s officers. For the current report, the Marine
Corps provided data on the cost to train its personnel; the services
provided data on the cost to train medical professionals; and the Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps provided data on the cost of recruiting
officers. The Army was not able to provide data on the cost of officer
recruiting in time for the data to be included in our analyses. The Army,
Air Force, and Marine Corps provided data on the cost of training officers.
However, we did not include the cost of training Navy officers because the
Navy provided data that were not specific to the occupational specialties
of the separated officers. In order to be consistent with our methodology
of calculating training cost calculations that are specific to the
occupational specialties of separated servicemembers, we did not include
the incomplete Navy data. In addition, in 2005, DOD was not able to
provide us with information on the administrative costs of separating
servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy. For the current
report, the Air Force, the Army, and the Marine Corps provided us with
this information. The Navy explained that it was not able to provide this
information because changes in separation processes from fiscal years
2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials from providing an accurate
administrative cost estimate in time for the data to be included in our
analyses. The analyses in this report were current as of November 30,
2010. As a result, the personnel and cost data provided in the 2005 report
are not comparable to the information provided in this report.
Some
Servicemembers
Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct
Policy Held Skills in
Critical Occupations
or Important Foreign
Languages
Based on our analysis of DMDC data, 3,664 servicemembers were
separated under the homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009, and based on our analysis of information provided by the
services, 1,458 (40 percent) of these servicemembers held skills in a
critical occupation, an important foreign language, or both, as determined
by us and the services. Servicemembers with critical occupations and
important foreign language skills are not necessarily mutually exclusive
groups because some critical occupations, such as cryptologic linguists
and interrogators, require an important foreign language skill. According
to our analysis, 7 servicemembers held a critical occupation and also held
an important foreign language skill.
Page 9
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Data on Servicemembers
Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct
Policy Who Held Skills in
Critical Occupations
Based on our analysis of DMDC data, of the 3,664 servicemembers who
were discharged under the homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years
2004 through 2009, 1,442 (39 percent) of them held skills in critical
occupations. Based on interviews with service officials, we and the
services determined for the purposes of this report that an occupation was
“critical” if it received a bonus under DOD’s Enlistment Bonus program, 15
Accession Bonus for New Officers in Critical Skills program, Selective
Reenlistment Bonus program, or Critical Skills Retention Bonus program. 16
These bonus programs provide monetary incentives to individuals to help
the services maintain adequate numbers of personnel in designated critical
occupations. We also used service-specific critical occupations lists to
determine critical occupations, such as the Air Force Stressed Career
Fields List, 17 the Marine Top Ten Critical Occupations List, and the list of
occupations deemed critical under the Marine 202K Sustainment Plan. 18
Table 2 shows, by service, a breakdown of the 1,442 servicemembers who
held critical occupations and were separated from fiscal years 2004
through 2009.
15
We used the Army’s Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists in lieu of the Army’s Enlistment
Bonus lists because the Army noted that the occupations on the Top 25 Priority
Occupations Lists better represent the Army’s critical occupations for enlistment.
16
See Department of Defense Instruction 1304.29, Administration of Enlistment Bonuses,
Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses,
and Critical Skills Retention Bonuses for Active Members (Dec. 15, 2004).
17
The Air Force Stressed Career Fields List was available only for fiscal years 2008 and
2009.
18
The Marine Corps 202K Sustainment Plan includes critical occupations for the period
covering the final 3 years of our review period: fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
Page 10
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 2: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Total
2004
Fiscal year
9
152
0
10
171
2005
7
232
0
33
272
2006
12
184
1
16
213
2007
9
218
28
24
279
2008
39
231
26
27
323
2009
25
121
29
9
184
Total
101
1,138
84
119
1,442
7
79
6
8
100
Percentage of total
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
The reported number of separated Navy and Air Force servicemembers
who held skills in critical occupations could be an underestimation. The
Navy was not able to provide the information necessary to determine
whether separated Navy servicemembers held occupations on the
enlistment bonus lists because of the manner in which the Navy assigns
occupational specialties to its recruits. Also, while the Navy does offer
accession bonuses to new officers, Navy officials could not determine
which bonuses were offered during the fiscal years of our study. Thus, we
could not include any Navy occupations that were eligible for Accession
Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills. While the Air Force was able to
provide the occupational specialties eligible for enlistment bonuses from
fiscal years 2006 through 2009, it was unable to provide the occupational
specialties eligible for enlistment bonuses in fiscal years 2004 and 2005
because Air Force data were incomplete.
Of the total population separated under the policy, 625 servicemembers
(17 percent) were separated with less than 3 months of military service,
394 servicemembers (11 percent) were separated within 3 to 6 months of
military service, 657 servicemembers (18 percent) were separated within 6
months to 1 year of military service, 706 servicemembers (19 percent)
were separated within 1 to 2 years of military service, and 1,282
servicemembers (35 percent) were separated with 2 years or more of
military service. We analyzed the lengths of service for the 1,442
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy who
held skills in critical occupations from fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
Figure 3 shows the amount of time served prior to separation by
servicemembers who held skills in critical occupations. (For more detailed
information on the length of service of servicemembers separated under
Page 11
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
the homosexual conduct policy who held skills in critical occupations, see
table 18 in app. IV.)
Figure 3: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Critical Occupations from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009
20%
(288)
33%
(472)
10%
(145)
20%
(289)
17%
(248)
Separated with less than 3 months of military service
Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service
Separated within 6 months to 1 year of military service
Separated within 1 to 2 years of military service
Separated with 2 years or more of military service
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Of the 1,442 separated servicemembers who held skills in critical
occupations, 148 (10 percent) of them held skills in intelligence-related
critical occupations. The services reviewed the critical occupations held
by the servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy
and designated the critical occupations that they deemed to be intelligence
related. Examples of intelligence-related critical occupations include
human intelligence collector, cryptologic technician (interpretive),
intelligence specialist, and airborne cryptologic language analyst. Table 3
shows a breakdown, by service, of the 148 separated servicemembers who
held intelligence-related critical occupations during the 6-year period.
Page 12
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 3: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Intelligence-Related Critical Occupations Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Service
Number of separated
servicemembers
who held skills
in critical occupations
Air Force
Army
Number of separated
servicemembers who
held skills in intelligencerelated critical occupations
Percentage of separated
servicemembers in
critical occupations that
are intelligence related
101
33
33
1,138
105
9
84
4
5
Marine Corps
Navy
119
6
5
Total
1,442
148
10
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
Of those separated who held skills in critical occupations, 1,425 were
enlisted servicemembers and 17 were officers. Separated servicemembers
with critical occupations served an average of 22 months, which is about
26 months less than the typical initial service contract of most enlistees
and the typical officer-commissioning contract. 19 As shown in table 4, the
most common critical occupations held by separated servicemembers
across all services were infantryman and military police. (See table 17 in
app. IV for a more detailed list, by service, of the most common
occupations held by separated servicemembers.)
19
Before enlisted recruits are sent to recruit training, they are required to take an enlistment
oath and sign a contract to serve one of the military services for a specified period of time,
generally from 2 to 6 years and typically for 4 years. According to service officials, the
typical officer-commissioning contract is 4 years, with some contracts ranging from 3 to 10
years, depending on the occupation and commissioning source.
Page 13
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 4: Examples of Critical Occupations of Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy across All Services from Fiscal Years 2004 through
2009
Number of separated
servicemembers
Percentage of
total separated
servicemembers
with skills in
critical occupations
Infantryman
190
13
Military police
120
8
Motor transport operator
114
8
Mental health specialist
69
5
Food service specialist
68
5
Critical occupations
Health care specialist
59
4
Unit supply specialist
51
4
Nuclear field (electronics technician,
machinist’s mate, and electrician’s mate)
36
3
Chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear specialist
34
2
Petroleum supply specialist
32
2
Signal support system specialist
32
2
Other
637
44
Total
1,442
100
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
Data on Servicemembers
Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct
Policy Who Held Important
Foreign Language Skills
Based on our analysis of DMDC data, of the 3,664 servicemembers
separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal years 2004 through 2009, 23
(less than 1 percent) of them held skills in an important foreign language.
Based on interviews, we and the services determined for the purposes of
this report that a language was “important” if a financial incentive was
provided under the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus (FLPB) program.
This bonus program provides incentives for the acquisition, maintenance,
and enhancement of foreign language skills at a particular proficiency
level. The FLPB is used to increase strategic language capability
throughout DOD by (1) encouraging servicemembers with foreign
language proficiency to self-identify and sustain proficiency; (2) providing
servicemembers an incentive to acquire foreign language skills, improve
foreign language skills, or both; (3) providing servicemembers whose
military specialty requires a foreign language with an incentive to expand
their proficiency to other foreign languages and dialects; and (4) creating a
cadre of language professionals operating at the highest levels of
Page 14
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
proficiency. Table 5 shows a breakdown across all services of the 23
servicemembers who held important foreign language skills and were
separated under the homosexual conduct policy during the 6-year period.
Table 5: Number of Active Duty Servicemembers with Important Foreign Language Skills Separated under the Homosexual
Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Total
2004
Fiscal year
1
2
0
2
5
2005
0
2
0
4
6
2006
0
1
1
1
3
2007
0
1
1
5
7
2008
0
1
0
1
2
2009
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1
7
2
13
23
Percentage of total
4
30
9
57
100
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
Of the 23 servicemembers separated who held skills in an important
foreign language, 22 were enlisted servicemembers and 1 was an officer.
Separated servicemembers with an important foreign language skill served
an average of 26 months, which is about 22 months less than the typical
initial service contract of most enlistees and the typical officercommissioning contract. To assess listening, reading, and speaking
proficiencies, DOD uses an 11-point scale that represents the degree of
competence in the language in which a member possesses the highest
proficiency. The scale includes numeric values of 00 (no proficiency), 06
(memorized proficiency), 10 (elementary proficiency), 16 (elementary
proficiency plus), 20 (limited working proficiency), 26 (limited working
proficiency plus), 30 (general professional proficiency), 36 (general
professional proficiency plus), 40 (advanced professional proficiency), 46
(advanced professional proficiency plus), and 50 (functionally native
proficiency). To receive the FLPB, servicemembers must attain a
minimum of 20/20 or higher on the scale in any two modalities (listening,
reading, or speaking). As shown in table 6, the most common important
language skills held by separated servicemembers were Arabic and
Spanish.
Page 15
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 6: Languages Spoken by—and the Proficiency Levels of—Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct
Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Listening
proficiency
Reading
a
proficiency
Russian
20
20
Army
Arabic
26
30
Enlisted
Army
Korean
20
20
Enlisted
Navy
Korean
20
26
Enlisted
Navy
Chinese (Mandarin)
26
30
Enlisted
Army
Spanish
20
30
Enlisted
Army
Polish
30
30
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
50
50
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
30
26
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
50
50
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
20
30
Rank
Service
Important foreign language
Enlisted
Air Force
Enlisted
2004
2005
2006
Enlisted
Army
Arabic
20
26
Enlisted
Navy
Haitian-Creole
30
30
Enlisted
Marine Corps
Lithuanian
30
30
20
20
2007
Officer
Army
Vietnamese
Enlisted
Navy
Arabic
30
30
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
30
30
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
20
26
Enlisted
Navy
Arabic
20
26
Enlisted
Navy
Spanish
20
20
Enlisted
Marine Corps
Tagalog
30
20
26
20
20
20
2008
Enlisted
Army
Tagalog
Enlisted
Navy
Serbian
2009
According to our analysis, no servicemembers separated under the policy in fiscal year 2009 held an important foreign language skill.
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
a
Speaking proficiency scores were not provided by DMDC for separated servicemembers who held
skills in important foreign languages.
Page 16
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Of the total population separated under the policy, 625 servicemembers
(17 percent) were separated with less than 3 months of military service,
394 servicemembers (11 percent) were separated within 3 to 6 months of
military service, 657 servicemembers (18 percent) were separated within 6
months to 1 year of military service, 706 servicemembers (19 percent)
were separated within 1 to 2 years of military service, and 1,282
servicemembers (35 percent) were separated with 2 years or more of
military service. We analyzed the lengths of service for the 23
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy who
held skills in important foreign languages from fiscal years 2004 through
2009. Figure 4 shows the amount of time served prior to separation by
servicemembers who held skills in important foreign languages. (For more
detailed information on the length of service of servicemembers separated
under the homosexual conduct policy who held skills in important foreign
languages, see table 19 in app. IV.)
Figure 4: Amount of Time Served by Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Important Foreign Languages from
Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
9%
(2)
26%
48%
(6)
(11)
17%
(4)
Separated within 3 to 6 months of military service
Separated within 6 months to 1 year of military service
Separated within 1 to 2 years of military service
Separated with 2 years or more of military service
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
Note: According to our analysis, no servicemembers who held skills in important foreign languages
were separated under the policy with less than 3 months of military service.
Page 17
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Certain Costs
Associated with
Administering DOD’s
Homosexual Conduct
Policy Can Be
Calculated
Using available DOD cost data, we calculated that it cost DOD
approximately $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal
year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers
separated under the homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004
through 2009. This figure represents about $185.6 million in recruiting and
training costs for replacing servicemembers separated under the policy
and about $7.7 million in certain administrative costs for which we were
able to obtain data. (See fig. 5 for the services’ cost of administering DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy.) In calculating the services’ costs to recruit
and train replacements, we used variable costs and excluded fixed costs to
the extent possible because, according to service officials, there would
likely be no significant increase in fixed costs when recruiting and training
a relatively small number of replacement personnel. For example, in fiscal
year 2009, the Army separated 195 servicemembers under the homosexual
conduct policy. This means that in fiscal year 2009, the Army would have
needed to recruit 195 replacements. In that same year, the Army recruited
about 70,000 soldiers. Thus, in order to replace the 195 separated
servicemembers in fiscal year 2009, the Army would have needed to
recruit .003 percent more soldiers than it would have otherwise recruited.
According to Army officials, because this .003 percent of additional
recruiting represents such a small portion of total recruiting, there would
likely be no need to increase recruiting infrastructure or hire more
recruiting personnel. Because the services do not use “fixed costs” and
“variable costs” as categories in their recruiting and training budgets, we
provided each service with a common set of criteria to define these terms,
and asked each service to determine the fixed and variable components of
their cost data and provide us with variable costs. However, each of the
services tracks and maintains data in different ways, which in some cases
affected their ability to provide us with only variable costs. For example,
while the Army and Air Force were able to provide us with variable
recruiting and training costs, the Navy was not able to provide variable
recruiting and training costs, and the Marine Corps was not able to provide
variable training costs. In these cases, Navy and Marine Corps officials
explained that they were not able to provide data with only variable costs
because of the way their services track these data. While the Navy and
Marine Corps track the total budgets of recruiting and training commands
and individual courses, they do not track individual cost elements of these
totals. For this reason, they were not able to determine the fixed and
variable components of their cost data. To the extent that recruiting and
training cost data provided by the services contain fixed costs, this would
result in an overestimation of replacement costs. To calculate the
administrative cost of carrying out separations, we asked the services to
identify the legal and nonlegal processes associated with the separation
Page 18
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
process and requested data on personnel involved in carrying out these
tasks. Using these data and military pay rates, we calculated
administrative costs. While the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps
provided us with this information, the Navy did not provide data on the
legal and nonlegal processes associated with carrying out separations. The
Navy explained that it was not able to provide this information because
changes in separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009
prevented Navy officials from providing an accurate administrative cost
estimate in time for the data to be included in our analyses. Because the
Navy did not provide data on administrative costs, our calculation of these
costs is an underestimation of DOD’s likely total administrative costs.
Figure 5: Services’ Cost of Administering DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in
Thousands)
Air Forcea
Army
3% ($634.6)
Navyb
Marine Corps
14%
3%
($6,490.4)
($580.1)
3%
13%
($668.6)
($14,056.9)
23%
($10,502.3)
63%
97%
($28,901.2)
($19,382.2)
94%
87%
($21,290.5)
($90,813.7)
Administrative cost
Combined replacement cost
Recruiting cost
Training cost
Source: GAO analysis of military service and Office of the Secretary of Defense data.
a
The Air Force provided a single cost that included recruiting and training costs combined.
b
The Navy explained that it was not able to provide this information because changes in separation
processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials from providing an accurate
administrative cost estimate in time for the data to be included in our analyses.
Page 19
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Cost to Recruit and Train
Replacements for
Separations under the
Policy from Fiscal Years
2004 through 2009
All of the services were able to provide data related to the cost to recruit
and train servicemembers. Based on these data, we calculated that it cost
DOD about $185.6 million in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to recruit
and train replacements for the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the
homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. 20 Our
calculation includes the cost to the services to recruit a new
servicemember, provide him or her with basic training, and graduate the
servicemember from initial skills training in the occupational specialty in
which a servicemember had been separated. Our calculation of
replacement costs concludes with the end of initial skills training because,
according to each of the military services, this is the point in a
servicemember’s career at which he or she is considered minimally
qualified to perform required tasks within a separated servicemember’s
occupational specialty. To the extent possible, we included variable
recruiting and training costs in our calculations, such as recruiting
bonuses and consumable supplies used by trainees, and excluded fixed
costs, such as the cost of recruiting and training infrastructure or recruiter
and instructor salaries. 21 This approach was taken because there would
likely be no significant increase in fixed costs when recruiting and training
a relatively small number of replacement personnel. As shown in table 7,
our calculations for the services’ replacement costs amount to about
$19.4 million for the Air Force, $39.4 million for the Army, $22.0 million for
the Marine Corps, and $104.9 million for the Navy. The Navy recruiting and
training cost calculation is larger than the other services’ calculations
because according to Navy officials, the Navy recruiting and training cost
data contain both fixed and variable costs.
20
For all services, officer-commissioning costs are not included.
21
Other variable recruiting and training costs include, but are not limited to, recruit and
trainee travel, college funds provided to servicemembers, drug testing, and compensation
(salary and benefits) for servicemembers while they are in training.
Page 20
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Table 7: Cost of Replacements for Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009 (Dollars in Millions)
Air Forcea
Army
Marine Corpsb
Navyc
Total
2004
$2.9
$6.2
$2.7
$20.1
$31.9
2005
3.0
7.4
3.1
20.3
$33.8
2006
3.6
5.9
3.3
19.0
$31.8
2007
3.7
7.1
4.0
18.8
$33.6
2008
3.3
7.3
5.1
17.3
$33.0
2009
2.8
5.5
3.8
9.4
$21.5
$19.4
$39.4
$22.0
$104.9
$185.6
540
1,774
437
913
3,664
10
21
12
56
100
Fiscal year
Total
d
Number of separated servicemembers
Percentage of total
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
a
While the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy were able to provide separate costs for recruiting and
training, the Air Force provided an aggregated cost for recruiting and training that did not separate
those costs. Using combined recruiting and training data from the Air Force, we calculated that over
the 6-year period, the Air Force’s replacement costs were about $19.4 million in constant fiscal year
2009 dollars.
b
Marine Corps officials noted that their recruiting cost data consist of variable costs, while their
training cost data consist of both fixed and variable costs. The Marine Corps tracks the total budget of
training commands and individual courses but does not track individual cost elements of these totals.
For this reason, Marine Corps officials were not able to determine the fixed and variable components
of their training cost data.
c
According to service officials, the recruiting and training cost data provided by the Navy include both
fixed and variable costs, while the recruiting and training cost data provided by the Air Force and
Army consist of variable costs.
d
Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of rounding.
The services were able to provide data related to the cost to recruit
replacement servicemembers. We calculated that from fiscal year 2004
through 2009, it cost DOD about $25.2 million in constant fiscal year 2009
dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers separated under the
homosexual conduct policy. This calculation represents about 14 percent
of the total calculated replacement cost associated with separating
servicemembers under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy. Recruiting
costs include, but are not limited to, the costs associated with enlistment
bonuses; recruit travel; and recruiting support, such as the processing of a
recruit’s paperwork. As shown in table 8, the Navy’s cost to recruit
replacements was the largest among the services because, according to
Navy officials, the Navy included both fixed and variable costs in its
recruiting estimates. According to Army and Marine Corps officials, the
recruiting cost data provided by the Army and Marine Corps consist of
variable costs. In addition, while the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps
Page 21
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
provided data on the cost of recruiting officers, the Army was not able to
provide data on the cost of recruiting officers in time for the data to be
included in our analyses. The Air Force could not provide disaggregated
recruiting and training costs and instead provided a replacement cost
estimate that combines variable recruiting and training costs.
Table 8: Cost of Recruiting Replacements for Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Army
Marine Corpsa
Navy
Total
2004
$1,455.7
$61.7
$2,736.4
$4,253.8
2005
1,447.4
77.3
2,717.9
$4,242.6
2006
1,415.2
67.7
2,547.9
$4,030.8
2007
1,931.1
64.5
2,474.6
$4,470.3
2008
2,213.5
191.1
2,344.2
$4,748.8
2,039.4
206.3
1,235.9
$3,481.6
$10,502.3
$668.6
$14,056.9
$25,227.8
1,774
437
913
3,124
42
3
56
100
Fiscal year
2009
Total
b
Number of separated servicemembers
Percentage of total
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
a
The Marine Corps classified enlistment bonuses and college funds as fixed costs, whereas the Army
classified enlistment bonuses and college funds as variable costs. In our calculations, we consider
enlistment bonuses and college funds to be variable costs for both services.
b
Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of rounding.
The services were able to provide data related to the cost to train
replacement servicemembers through initial occupational training. We
calculated that from fiscal year 2004 through 2009, it cost DOD about
$141.0 million in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to train replacements for
servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy. This
calculation represents about 76 percent of the total calculated
replacement cost associated with separating servicemembers under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy. Costs associated with basic training and
initial skills training include, but are not limited to, clothing and
equipment, supplies, student travel, administration of courses of
instruction, replacement servicemembers’ salaries and benefits during
training, and overhead costs associated with training centers.
As shown in table 9, there is variation in the size of our calculations of the
services’ cost to train replacement servicemembers. For example, the
Navy’s cost to train replacements was the largest among the services
Page 22
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
because the Navy included both fixed and variable costs in its training
estimates. Although the Marine Corps included fixed and variable costs in
its training estimates, the Navy separated over twice as many
servicemembers as the Marine Corps. Moreover, according to the Marine
Corps, a significant proportion of its servicemembers’ training is carried
out by other services. However, the Marine Corps does not track the cost
of training it receives from the other services and therefore could not
provide us with comprehensive data on the cost to train Marine Corps
personnel. Marine Corps officials explained that the other services that
train Marine Corps servicemembers may contribute up to 60 percent of the
total cost of training in the occupational specialties held by Marine Corps
servicemembers separated under the policy from fiscal years 2004 through
2009. As can be seen in table 9, the Air Force is not included because it
could not provide disaggregated recruiting and training costs and instead
provided a replacement cost estimate that combines variable recruiting
and training costs. While the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps provided
data on the cost of training officers, we did not include the cost of training
Navy officers because the Navy provided data that were not specific to the
occupational specialties of the separated officers. In order to be consistent
with our methodology of calculating training cost calculations that are
specific to the occupational specialties of separated servicemembers, we
did not include the incomplete Navy data.
Table 9: Cost of Training Replacements for Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal year
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Total
2004
$4.8
$2.6
$17.3
$24.8
2005
5.9
3.1
17.6
$26.5
2006
4.4
3.2
16.5
$24.1
2007
5.1
4.0
16.3
$25.4
2008
5.1
4.9
15.0
$25.0
2009
3.5
3.6
8.1
$15.2
$28.9
$21.3
$90.8
$141.0
1,774
437
913
3,124
20
15
64
100
Total
a
Number of separated servicemembers
Percentage of total
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Notes: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
a
Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of rounding.
To the extent that recruiting and training cost data provided by the
services contain fixed costs, this would result in an overestimation of
Page 23
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
replacement costs. However, we were not able to determine the extent of
the replacement cost overestimation.
Administrative Costs
Could Be Estimated from
Data Provided by Three of
the Services
The Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps were able to provide estimates on
the administrative costs associated with separating servicemembers under
DOD’s homosexual conduct policy. The Navy explained that it was not
able to provide this information because changes in separation processes
from fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented Navy officials from
providing an accurate administrative cost estimate in time for the data to
be included in our analyses. Using the estimates of the Air Force, Army,
and Marine Corps, we calculated that from fiscal years 2004 through 2009,
it cost DOD about $7.7 million in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to
separate 2,751 servicemembers from the three services under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy. 22 As shown in table 10, our calculation of the
services’ administrative costs for implementing the homosexual conduct
policy includes two types of costs: legal and nonlegal. Legal administrative
costs amounted to about $2.5 million (33 percent) of the total
administrative cost, while nonlegal administrative costs amounted to
about $5.2 million (67 percent) of the total administrative cost.
Table 10: Administrative Costs of Separating Servicemembers under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Case category
Legal
Nonlegal
Totalb
Number of separated servicemembers
Percentage of total
Air Force
Armya
Marine Corps
$228.5
$2,108.6
$181.7
$2,518.9
406.1
4,381.8
398.3
$5,186.2
$634.6
$6,490.4
$580.1
$7,705.1
540
1,774
437
2,751
8
84
8
100
Total
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
a
Administrative costs for the Army are larger because the Army identified a larger number of
administrative processes for separating servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy than
the other two services. Because Army officials reported a greater number of tasks and more time
processing cases, the Army’s administrative costs are higher than those of the other two services. In
addition, the Army separated more servicemembers than the other two services, which would result in
a higher total administrative cost.
b
Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of rounding.
22
The 2,751 separations do not include those servicemembers separated by the Navy.
Page 24
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Legal administrative costs involve the costs associated with the services’
review of homosexual conduct cases. According to the services, the legal
costs include paralegal work, attorneys’ counseling of servicemembers,
and board hearings. With the exception of the Navy, the services were able
to identify approximately 3,700 cases associated with DOD’s homosexual
conduct policy from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. These cases include
board cases (cases in which a service board and legal officials reviewed a
case), 23 nonboard cases (cases in which legal officials reviewed a case, but
it was not reviewed by a service board), and unsubstantiated cases (cases
in which legal officials reviewed a case, but the case did not result in a
separation). 24 Table 11 shows the legal administrative costs by military
service and types of cases for the 6-year period.
Table 11: Legal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal Years
2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Type of casea
Air Force
Armyb
Marine Corps
Total
Board cases
$30.5
$436.0
$12.0
$478.5
Nonboard cases
139.4
1,469.6
111.1
$1,720.1
Unsubstantiated cases
Totalc
Number of separated servicemembers
Percentage of total
58.6
203.1
58.6
$320.3
$228.5
$2,108.6
$181.7
$2,518.9
540
1,774
437
2,751
9
84
7
100
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
a
According to the services, a total of 3,695 cases were considered from fiscal years 2004 through
2009. Of these, 121 were board cases, 2,630 were nonboard cases, and 944 were unsubstantiated
cases.
b
Administrative costs for the Army are larger because the Army identified a larger number of
administrative processes for separating servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy than
the other two services. Because Army officials reported a greater number of tasks and more time
processing cases, the Army’s administrative costs are higher than those of the other two services. In
addition, the Army separated more servicemembers than the other two services, which would result in
a higher total administrative cost.
c
Totals may not equal sums of individual service costs because of rounding.
23
According to service officials, a servicemember can request that a service board review
the service’s decision to separate the servicemember. In these cases, a board will review
the separation case. Based on information provided by the services, board cases made up
approximately 4 percent of all cases concerning homosexual conduct.
24
According to service officials and service data, the number of separation cases that
require legal administrative work is higher than the total number of separations under
DOD’s homosexual conduct policy because unsubstantiated cases required review by legal
personnel even though these cases did not result in separation.
Page 25
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
According to the services, the nonlegal costs include commanders’
inquiries, pastoral counseling of servicemembers, and the processing of
separation paperwork. As shown in table 12, these activities occur at
successive levels of command within and outside of the servicemember’s
unit.
Table 12: Nonlegal Administrative Cost of Separating Servicemembers under the Homosexual Conduct Policy from Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2009 (Dollars in Thousands)
Level of command
Air Force
Armya
Marine Corpsb
Total
Company or flight
$29.2
$711.4
$23.4
$764.0
Battalion or squadron, and above
119.9
1,098.1
374.9
$1,592.9
Outside of servicemember’s direct chain of command
257.0
2,572.3
No data
$2,829.3
$406.1
$4,381.8
$398.3
$5,186.2
540
1,774
437
2,751
8
84
8
100
Total
Number of separated servicemembersc
Percentage of total
Source: GAO analysis of service data.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars.
a
Administrative costs for the Army are larger because the Army identified a larger number of
administrative processes for separating servicemembers under the homosexual conduct policy than
the other two services. Because Army officials reported a greater number of tasks and more time
processing cases, the Army’s administrative costs are higher than those of the other two services. In
addition, the Army separated more servicemembers than the other two services, which would result in
a higher total administrative cost.
b
The Marine Corps did not report nonlegal administrative costs for activities that occurred outside a
servicemember’s chain of command.
c
According to the services, the number of nonlegal administrative reviews and the number of
separations are the same.
Because the Navy was not able to provide data on administrative costs in
time for the data to be included in our analyses, our calculation of these
costs is an underestimation of DOD’s likely total administrative costs. We
were not able to determine the extent of the administrative cost
underestimation.
Page 26
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD
did not have any comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget. The report also is available at
no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Zina D. Merritt
Acting Director
Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 27
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Scope
In conducting our review of the Department of Defense’s (DOD)
homosexual conduct policy, the scope of our work included active duty
separations under the homosexual conduct policy across all of the service
components—the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy—for the
period covering fiscal years 2004 through 2009. We also obtained the total
number of Reserve and National Guard servicemembers separated under
the policy during the same period of time. 1 However, we did not include
Reserve and National Guard servicemembers in our analysis because
according to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), DOD only
collects data on separations for homosexual conduct for the active duty
members of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. According to an
official with DMDC, the official tracking of separations for homosexual
conduct began in 1997, at which time it was decided to include only active
duty servicemembers. Data on servicemembers separated under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy were obtained from DMDC and each of the
military services and are current as of November 30, 2010.
Methodology
To determine the extent to which servicemembers with skills in critical
occupations were separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy, we
obtained data from DMDC on the occupational specialties held by the
servicemembers separated under the policy from fiscal years 2004 through
2009. We interviewed officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the offices within the services
that are responsible for managing occupational specialties and
administering bonus programs. Based on interviews, we and the services
determined for the purposes of this report that an occupation was
“critical” if a financial incentive was provided under any of the enlistment,
reenlistment, or retention bonus programs under Department of Defense
Instruction 1304.29. 2 This instruction prescribes procedures with regard to
Enlistment Bonuses (monetary incentives provided to individuals enlisting
in a military service for a period of time and, if applicable, in a specific
military skill experiencing critical shortages); Selective Reenlistment
1
These separations do not include servicemembers from Reserve and National Guard
components of the military services who were in active duty status for 31 or more
consecutive days.
2
See Department of Defense Instruction 1304.29, Administration of Enlistment Bonuses,
Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses,
and Critical Skills Retention Bonuses for Active Members (Dec. 15, 2004).
Page 28
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Bonuses 3 (monetary incentives provided to individuals to maintain
adequate numbers of enlisted personnel in critical skills needed to sustain
the career force); Critical Skills Retention Bonuses (monetary incentives
provided to individuals to maintain adequate numbers of officers or
enlisted personnel with designated critical skills needed to sustain the
career force); and Accession Bonuses for New Officers in Critical Skills
(monetary incentives to individuals who accept commissions or
appointments as an officer and serve on active duty in a military service in
a skill the service has designated a critical officer skill). However, the
Navy was not able to provide the information necessary to determine
whether separated Navy servicemembers held occupations on the
enlistment bonus lists because of the manner in which the Navy assigns
occupational specialties to its recruits. Also, while the Navy does offer
accession bonuses to new officers, Navy officials could not determine
which bonuses were offered under Department of Defense Instruction
1304.29 or during the fiscal years of our study. Thus, we could not include
any Navy occupations that were eligible for Accession Bonuses for New
Officers in Critical Skills. The reported number of separated Navy
servicemembers who held skills in critical occupations would be an
underestimation. While the Air Force was able to provide the occupational
specialties eligible for enlistment bonuses from fiscal years 2006 through
2009, the Air Force was unable to provide the occupational specialties
eligible for enlistment bonuses in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 because the
Air Force’s data were incomplete. Thus, the reported number of separated
Air Force servicemembers who held skills in critical occupations would be
underestimated. We used the Army’s Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists in
lieu of the Army’s Enlistment Bonus lists because the Army noted that the
occupations on the Top 25 Priority Occupations Lists better represent the
Army’s critical occupations for enlistment. We also included occupations
found on additional lists that the services used to describe critical
occupations for certain fiscal years during the period of our review,
including the Air Force Stressed Career Fields List (fiscal years 2008 and
2009), the Marine Top Ten Critical Occupations List (fiscal years 2004
through 2009), and the list of occupations deemed critical under the
3
The Army, Marine Corps, and Navy list the occupations eligible for the Selective
Reenlistment Bonus in their annual budget justifications. The Air Force, however, does not
list these occupations in its budget justification. The services determine reenlistment bonus
amounts by multiplying (1) a servicemember’s current monthly basic pay by (2) the
member’s number of additional years of obligated service by (3) a bonus multiplier that can
range from 0.5 to 15. By analyzing the Air Force Selective Reenlistment Bonus lists from
fiscal years 2004 through 2009, we deemed most critical the 10 occupations with the largest
bonus multipliers in each fiscal year.
Page 29
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Marine 202K Sustainment Plan (fiscal years 2007 through 2009). We then
compared the occupations of the separated servicemembers to our lists of
critical occupations, by fiscal year. To assess the number of
servicemembers separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy who
held skills in intelligence-related critical occupations, we asked the
services to analyze the critical occupations held by the servicemembers
separated under the homosexual conduct policy and designate the critical
occupations that the services deemed intelligence related.
To determine the extent to which servicemembers with skills in important
foreign languages were separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct
policy, we obtained data from DMDC on the foreign language information
(i.e., foreign language, proficiency score, date of proficiency certification,
and year of separation) of each enlisted servicemember and officer
separated under the policy during the period of our review. We
interviewed officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the offices within the services that are
responsible for determining foreign language requirements and
administering bonus programs. Based on interviews, we and the services
determined for the purposes of this report that a language was “important”
if a financial incentive was provided under the Foreign Language
Proficiency Bonus (FLPB) program. 4 The FLPB provides a monetary
incentive for the acquisition, maintenance, and enhancement of foreign
language skills at or above proficiency levels required for occupational
and functional performance. The FLPB is used to increase strategic
language capability by (1) encouraging servicemembers with foreign
language proficiency to self-identify and sustain proficiency; (2) providing
servicemembers an incentive to acquire foreign language skills, improve
foreign language skills, or both; (3) providing servicemembers whose
military specialties require a foreign language with an incentive to expand
their proficiency to other foreign languages and dialects; and (4) creating a
cadre of language professionals operating at the highest levels of
proficiency. To ensure that we considered the most comprehensive set of
critical languages skills for each service, we also used additional lists that
the services utilized to describe these language skills. Specifically, from
fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2005, each of the services used its own
specific list to determine which languages would qualify a servicemember
to receive an FLPB. Subsequently, in January of fiscal year 2006, the
4
See Department of Defense Instruction 7280.03, Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus
(Aug. 20, 2007).
Page 30
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Defense Language Office published its first annual Strategic Language List
(SLL). In the SLL, DOD prioritizes languages for which (1) DOD has
current and projected requirements, (2) training and testing will be
provided, (3) incentives will be applied, and (4) other resources will be
allocated. The SLL does not preclude the services from providing
incentives for other languages for which they may have requirements.
Therefore, from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009, each service
created its own SLL based on both the DOD-wide SLL and the service’s
specific language capabilities and requirements. Since fiscal year 2006, the
services have each used their own SLLs to determine the languages for
which their servicemembers would receive FLPBs. To assess the number
of servicemembers separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy
who held an important foreign language skill, we identified each
servicemember with language skills, determined whether the languages
qualified for FLPB in the year of the servicemember’s separation, reviewed
the servicemember’s proficiency scores in those languages to determine
whether the servicemember met the minimum requirements, and
determined whether the servicemember’s annual proficiency certification
was within 12 months of separation.
To calculate certain costs associated with administering DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy, we determined both the cost of recruiting and
training through initial occupational training of the replacements of
separated servicemembers and the services’ administrative costs incurred
when separating servicemembers under the policy. We determined that a
replacement cost methodology is the most appropriate approach, and it
allows us to produce the most accurate calculation based on the nature of
the data provided by the services. The replacement cost methodology
allows us to calculate the cost to the services to recruit a new
servicemember, provide him or her with basic training, and graduate the
servicemember from initial skills training in the occupational specialty in
which a servicemember had been separated. Our calculation of
replacement costs concludes with the end of initial skills training since,
according to each of the military services, this is the point in a
servicemember’s career at which he or she is considered minimally
qualified to perform required tasks within a separated servicemember’s
occupational specialty. 5
5
We are not suggesting by this cost estimate that the services specifically recruit or train a
replacement to the same experience level or proficiency as a servicemember who has been
separated under the homosexual conduct policy.
Page 31
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To calculate the recruiting and training costs associated with replacing
servicemembers separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy, we
collected recruiting and training cost data from the services. To the extent
possible, we used variable costs and excluded fixed costs to calculate the
services’ costs to recruit and train replacements. 6 Because the services do
not use “fixed costs” and “variable costs” as categories in their recruiting
and training budgets, we provided each service with a common set of
criteria to define these terms and asked each service to determine the
fixed and variable components of its cost data. Each of the services tracks
and maintains data in different ways, which in some cases affected their
ability to provide us with only variable costs. In regard to recruiting cost
data, the Army and Marine Corps were able to provide data that according
to officials consist of only variable costs. 7 However, according to Navy
officials, the Navy was not able to fully disaggregate fixed and variable
costs, and so our Navy recruiting calculations include some fixed costs.
The Army was not able to provide data on the cost of officer recruiting in
time for the data to be included in our analyses. In regard to training cost
data, the Navy and Marine Corps were not able to fully disaggregate fixed
and variable costs. The Army and Air Force were able to provide training
data, according to officials, that consist of only variable costs. To the
extent that any data provided by the services contain fixed costs, this
would result in an overestimation of calculated costs. However, we were
not able to determine the exact extent of this overestimation. We reviewed
the methodology and data used by the services to develop their cost
estimate data for recruiting and training, and determined that they were
reliable for our purposes of calculating replacement costs.
•
Recruiting costs: To calculate the recruiting costs associated with
replacing servicemembers separated under DOD’s homosexual
conduct policy, we collected fiscal year data from the Army, Marine
Corps, and Navy for the average cost to recruit active duty enlisted
6
For the purposes of this report, we define fixed costs as those that do not change with
output as opposed to variable costs whose totals vary directly with changes in output. In
the case of recruiting and training, the output is recruits and trainees, respectively.
7
The Marine Corps classified enlistment bonuses and college funds as fixed costs, whereas
the Army classified enlistment bonuses and college funds as variable costs. In our
calculations, we consider enlistment bonuses and college funds to be variable costs for
both services.
Page 32
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
servicemembers and officers. 8 We interviewed service officials who
are knowledgeable about their services’ recruiting costs and requested
variable cost data for certain tasks involved in the recruiting of
servicemembers. The services’ recruiting costs include, but are not
limited to, the costs associated with enlistment bonuses; recruit travel;
and recruiting support, such as the processing of a recruit’s
paperwork. The Army provided data on the average variable cost to
recruit one enlisted servicemember in each fiscal year but did not
provide data on officer recruiting in time for the data to be included in
our analyses. Marine Corps officials explained that the Marine Corps
provided data on the average variable cost to recruit enlisted
servicemembers, as well as the average variable cost to recruit officers
in each fiscal year. According to Navy officials, the Navy was not able
to fully disaggregate fixed and variable costs, and so our Navy
recruiting calculations include some fixed costs. We multiplied each of
these averages by the number of separated servicemembers for each
service to calculate a fiscal year total. Finally, we converted these
fiscal year totals to fiscal year 2009 dollars and summed our
calculations for each fiscal year within each service. These figures
represent the total cost of recruiting replacements for separated
servicemembers in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. The Air Force
provided recruiting costs as part of an overall figure that includes both
training and recruiting costs. 9 Using these overall figures, we followed
the same approach described above.
•
Training cost: These costs include compensation costs and other
costs.
•
Compensation costs: Using service-specific training course
lengths and DOD data on military compensation, we calculated the
amount of pay and benefits received by replacement
servicemembers during training. We interviewed service officials
8
The Air Force did not provide separate recruiting and training cost data. Rather, it
combined recruiting and training costs, including compensation received by personnel
during training, in a single estimate for each enlisted and commissioned occupational
specialty.
9
The Air Force was only able to provide cost data for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2009. To
ensure that we were able to develop an Air Force cost estimate over the full 6-year period
of our review, we used military personnel cost deflators from the DOD Comptroller to
calculate inflation-adjusted costs for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2008 based on the cost
data the Air Force provided for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2009. These military personnel
cost deflators are published annually in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s
Comptroller’s National Defense Budget Estimates.
Page 33
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
who are knowledgeable about their services’ compensation
procedures and requested data on the amounts of pay and benefits
received by servicemembers. To calculate the cost of
compensation for one enlisted servicemember or officer in the
Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, we first multiplied fiscal year
weekly compensation data provided by the services by the
standard number of weeks spent in each service’s basic training.
The Navy provided fiscal year compensation data for the entire
length of basic training. For occupational specialty training, we
multiplied the weekly compensation rate by the length of initial
skills training for each relevant occupation for all three of these
services. To address occupations for which data on training length
were not available, we used averages for the length of basic and
initial skills training for that service’s separated occupations in that
fiscal year. Next, we converted all calculations into fiscal year 2009
dollars, and then summed our calculations for each fiscal year
within each service. These figures represent the total
compensation received during basic training and occupational
specialty training for separated servicemembers in each service.
The Air Force includes the value of pay and benefits provided to
servicemembers in its overall recruiting and training cost estimate.
•
Other training costs: To calculate other training costs associated
with replacing servicemembers separated under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy, we collected fiscal year data from the
Army, Marine Corps, 10 and Navy for the costs to complete each
service’s basic training program and the initial skills training of the
specific occupational specialties contained within each service’s
group of separated servicemembers. 11 We interviewed service
officials who are knowledgeable about their services’ training
procedures and requested cost data for the training of
servicemembers. The costs associated with basic training and
10
While the Marine Corps provided separate sets of recruiting and training cost data, it was
only able to provide training cost data for fiscal year 2008. To ensure that we were able to
develop a Marine Corps cost estimate over the entire 6-year period of our study, we asked
the Marine Corps to calculate annual figures for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 and for
fiscal year 2009. The Marine Corps did so, providing us with inflation-adjusted cost figures
based on its fiscal year 2008 estimates.
11
The Air Force did not provide separate recruiting and training cost data. Rather, it
combined recruiting and training costs, including compensation received by personnel
during training, in a single estimate for each enlisted and commissioned occupational
specialty.
Page 34
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
initial skills training include, but are not limited to, clothing and
equipment, supplies, student travel, administration of courses of
instruction, and overhead associated with training centers. We
determined the length of each service’s basic training and asked
each service to provide the average variable cost for basic training
in the fiscal year a servicemember was separated. We also asked
the services to identify the average length of each initial skills
course and provide the average variable cost for an individual
servicemember to finish the initial skills training for each relevant
occupational specialty. According to data provided by the services,
the cost and length of training servicemembers in different
occupational specialties can vary widely. By using training cost
data that are specific to occupational specialties of the separated
servicemembers, we produced the most accurate calculation
possible, based on available data. To calculate the cost of training,
we multiplied the average basic and occupational training costs by
the number of servicemembers who held that occupation in the
year of their separation. Based on our requests, the services
supplied cost estimate data for the cost of basic training and of
training for each relevant occupational specialty for which they
had data. If there were occupations for which data were missing or
unavailable, we calculated an overall average training cost for
relevant occupations for the service and the fiscal year in which we
were missing data. We then used that average as the training cost
for the separated servicemembers, and followed the approach
described above. Finally, we converted these fiscal year totals to
fiscal year 2009 dollars and summed our calculations for each
fiscal year within each service. These figures represent the total
cost of training replacements for separated servicemembers in
each service. The Air Force provided variable training cost data as
part of an overall figure that includes both training and recruiting
costs.
To calculate the administrative cost of carrying out separations, we asked
the services to identify the legal and nonlegal processes associated with
the separations process. According to the services, the legal processes
may include paralegal work, attorneys’ counseling of servicemembers, and
board hearings. According to the services, the nonlegal costs may include
commanders’ inquiries, pastoral counseling of servicemembers, and the
processing of separation paperwork. To collect information on the types
of costs the services incur when separating servicemembers, we
interviewed and gathered data from service officials who are
knowledgeable about their services’ separations procedures and requested
cost data for certain tasks involved in the separation of servicemembers
Page 35
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
and on the personnel involved in carrying them out. Using these data and
military pay rates, we calculated administrative costs. While the Air Force,
Army, and Marine Corps provided us with this information, the Navy did
not provide data on the legal and nonlegal processes associated with
carrying out separations. Navy officials explained that changes in
separation processes from fiscal years 2004 through 2009 prevented them
from providing data on the personnel involved in carrying out key tasks in
time for the data to be included in our analyses. Because the Navy did not
provide data on administrative costs, our calculation of these costs is an
underestimation of DOD’s likely total administrative costs. For legal and
nonlegal administrative costs, we asked the Air Force, Army, and Marine
Corps to provide a list of the tasks carried out during separation of a
servicemember under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy, identify the
positions of officials involved in carrying out these tasks, estimate the
average amount of time required for each task, and identify the rank and
years of service of the type of official who would typically carry out the
task. With this information, we multiplied the time it typically takes to
complete a task by the hourly pay rate of the official who typically
performs the task, using the salary information from DOD’s pay tables for
fiscal year 2009, which are in fiscal year 2009 dollars. We repeated this
type of calculation for each task on a service’s list of tasks performed
during a separation. Next, we summed the cost of each of these tasks to
calculate a service’s total per-case administrative cost of processing this
type of separation. Finally, we multiplied this cost by the number of
separated servicemembers in each fiscal year to calculate each service’s
total administrative cost of separating servicemembers under DOD’s
homosexual conduct policy. For legal administrative costs, we calculated
these costs for the three different types of homosexual conduct cases that
a service processes: board cases, nonboard cases, and unsubstantiated
cases. For nonlegal administrative costs, we calculated costs for the three
levels of command at which a service typically processes homosexual
conduct separations: company or flight, battalion and above or squadron
and above, and outside of the separated servicemember’s chain of
command. Finally, we summed each of the three service’s costs to
calculate per-service totals for legal and nonlegal administrative costs over
the 6-year period of our study. The analyses in this report were current as
of November 30, 2010.
To calculate DOD’s total cost to replace the 3,664 servicemembers
separated under DOD’s homosexual conduct policy, we summed the total
recruiting and training costs from each service in order to calculate a
single, DOD-wide calculation of the cost to recruit and train replacements
for the servicemembers separated from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year
Page 36
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
2009. We added this total to the administrative total to determine the
overall total cost to DOD of implementing the homosexual conduct policy
during this period. We were unable to determine the extent of the
overestimation of replacement costs, the underestimation of the
administrative costs, or the resulting net impact on our calculation of the
overall total cost.
We assessed the reliability of all data provided by DOD and the services
for each of our objectives by (1) reviewing existing information about the
data and the systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about the data to determine the steps taken to
ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. We assessed the
reliability of DMDC’s Active Duty Personnel Transaction Fiscal Year End
DADT Files, Active Duty Personnel Master End Strength Fiscal Year End
Files and Monthly Files, and Active Duty Language Fiscal Year End Files
by (1) performing electronic testing of the required data elements,
(2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that
produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about
the data. In addition, we assessed the reliability of the services’ cost data
by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that
produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about
the data. We determined that the data sets were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of presenting separations, personnel information for separated
servicemembers, and costs associated with administering the homosexual
conduct policy.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2010 through January
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 37
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix II: General Information on
Separated Servicemembers
Appendix II: General Information on
Separated Servicemembers
As shown in table 13, DOD separated a total of approximately 1.2 million
servicemembers for all reasons, including voluntary reasons, from fiscal
years 2004 through 2009. Of the approximately 1.2 million servicemembers
separated by the services, the services granted “honorable” separations to
about 74 percent, “general” separations to about 6 percent, “under other
than honorable” separations to about 5 percent, “dishonorable dismissal”
separations to less than 1 percent, “bad conduct” separations to about 1
percent, and “uncharacterized” separations to about 10 percent. About 4
percent of the separations were classified “unknown or not applicable.” 1
Table 13: Total Separations for All Reasons by Fiscal Year and Service from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Fiscal year
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Total
2004
39,222
88,477
31,886
53,293
212,878
2005
45,951
84,907
32,354
51,141
214,353
2006
40,421
69,609
34,750
53,006
197,786
2007
47,668
72,452
34,557
53,657
208,334
2008
35,981
70,750
30,405
47,794
184,930
2009
31,086
71,984
30,647
43,699
177,416
Total
240,329
458,179
194,599
302,590
1,195,697
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and DOD data.
Tables 14 and 15 show separations for known reasons for enlisted
servicemembers and officers, by number of separations and per fiscal
year.
1
See Department of Defense Instruction 1336.05, Automated Extract of Active Duty
Military Personnel Records (July 29, 2009). At separation, DOD assigns a military service
characterization code to each individual’s service that represents an evaluation of a
servicemember's conduct and performance during his or her period of military service.
These characterizations include "honorable" (service reflected proper behavior and
proficient performance of duty); "under honorable conditions" (service reflected behavior
and performance that was short of honorable); "under other than honorable conditions"
(servicemember was convicted of a felony by civil authorities); "bad conduct" (conduct was
punished by a special or general court martial); "dishonorable" (conduct was punished by a
general court martial); and "uncharacterized" (servicemember served 6 months or less and
was assigned a separation reason of (1) entry-level separation, (2) void enlistment or
induction, or (3) dropped from strength). Also, some servicemembers’ characterization is
classified as "unknown or not applicable."
Page 38
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix II: General Information on
Separated Servicemembers
Table 14: Separation Reasons for Enlisted Servicemembers from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Separation reason
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total
Expiration of term of service
76,073
75,502
73,396
74,794
65,558
61,975
427,298
Retirement – 20 to 30 years of service
29,441
29,674
27,038
26,530
22,153
20,941
155,777
7,489
6,999
7,001
7,562
7,568
9,413
46,032
Unqualified for active duty – other
Disability – severance pay
6,895
8,829
7,485
7,309
6,685
5,938
43,141
Drugs
6,310
6,425
6,334
5,823
5,506
6,073
36,471
Officer Commissioning Program
4,016
4,439
4,871
6,555
7,358
6,835
34,074
Commission of a serious offense
3,285
3,556
3,774
3,881
3,792
4,074
22,362
Entry-level performance/conduct – former trainee
discharge
5,807
4,713
2,103
2,421
2,885
3,122
21,051
Failure to meet weight or body fat standards
3,751
3,418
3,183
4,074
4,490
2,597
21,513
Character or behavior disorder
3,546
3,689
3,851
4,125
3,190
2,083
20,484
Fraudulent entry
3,501
3,369
3,776
3,433
3,150
3,273
20,502
Discreditable incidents – civilian or military
3,520
3,401
3,130
3,322
3,254
3,535
20,162
Temporary disability retirement
2,130
2,586
2,622
2,967
3,717
5,250
19,272
Good of service (discharge lieu of court martial)
2,743
2,812
3,021
3,602
3,204
2,948
18,330
Parenthood
2,853
2,993
2,423
2,718
2,550
2,012
15,549
Pregnancy
2,637
2,657
2,473
2,715
2,332
1,970
14,784
Erroneous enlistment or induction
1,691
1,488
2,034
2,565
3,111
1,999
12,888
Early release – to attend school
2,140
2,145
2,211
2,154
1,767
1,438
11,855
Court martial
2,394
2,401
1,595
2,416
1,608
1,328
11,742
Early release – other, including reduction in force,
voluntary separation incentive, and special separation
benefit
2,183
1,702
1,930
984
613
1,258
8,670
Early release – other, including interdepartmental and
intradepartmental transfers
1,817
2,969
693
1,158
951
835
8,423
Pattern of minor disciplinary infractions
1,248
1,515
1,384
1,272
1,016
1,088
7,523
Absent without leave or desertion
1,011
948
1,575
1,571
1,513
647
7,265
Unsatisfactory performance (former expeditious
discharge program)
1,471
1,299
801
857
801
1,150
6,379
670
888
1,059
1,143
1,029
1,037
5,826
1,238
1,232
923
1,008
610
456
5,467
Retirement – over 30 years of service
Condition existing prior to service
Failure to meet minimum qualification for retention
911
990
1,031
856
769
775
5,332
Permanent disability retirement
446
537
570
822
1,121
1,653
5,149
Alcoholism
887
863
786
899
780
916
5,131
1,013
933
862
924
661
453
4,846
Misconduct – reason unknown
921
921
640
468
431
405
3,786
Death – nonbattle (other)
650
678
630
554
674
666
3,852
Dependency or hardship
Page 39
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix II: General Information on
Separated Servicemembers
Separation reason
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total
Homosexuality
650
709
600
616
606
418
3,599
Death – battle casualty
386
401
525
860
309
212
2,693
Military Service Academy
435
404
435
410
405
435
2,524
Civil court conviction
221
269
244
247
229
283
1,493
Breach of contract
187
138
142
112
115
89
783
72
106
104
119
98
79
578
Death – cause not specified
Disability – no condition existing prior service
severance pay
177
141
96
26
38
22
500
Sexual perversion
81
99
101
82
59
61
483
Early release – insufficient retainability
28
77
76
106
56
12
355
Retirement – other
53
29
25
30
59
96
292
Secretarial authority
51
77
38
38
38
24
266
Death – nonbattle (disease)
27
23
26
38
48
40
202
Conscientious objector
27
33
42
21
29
23
175
Sole surviving family member
6
9
6
12
8
7
48
Security
3
13
4
6
6
10
42
Juvenile offender
0
0
0
8
0
0
8
Minority (underage)
3
0
2
2
0
1
8
Unfitness – reason unknown
4
2
0
0
0
0
6
Unsuitability – reason unknown
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
187,099
189,101
177,671
184,220
166,950
159,955
1,064,996
Total
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and DOD data.
Table 15: Separation Reasons for Officers from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Separation reason
FY 2004
FY 2005
Retirement – 20 to 30 years of service
7,612
Expiration of term of service
6,322
Voluntary release – other, including voluntary
separation incentive and special separation benefit
Retirement – over 30 years of service
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total
8,265
7,583
7,867
6,993
6,709
45,029
6,260
5,085
4,901
3,643
3,256
29,467
1,712
2,540
3,271
6,903
3,999
3,079
21,504
538
566
718
862
746
753
4,183
Failure of selection of promotion
357
301
406
276
240
294
1,874
Secretarial authority
551
307
199
42
26
142
1,267
Temporary disability retirement
158
192
191
216
185
266
1,208
Unfitness or unacceptable conduct – other
147
188
185
234
173
181
1,108
Retirement – other
126
128
205
218
175
212
1,064
Disability – severance pay
187
252
179
178
141
98
1,035
Page 40
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix II: General Information on
Separated Servicemembers
Separation reason
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total
Involuntary release – other
43
34
650
74
2
3
806
Permanent disability retirement
77
85
87
114
118
148
629
Failure of course of instruction
69
106
87
15
27
37
341
Commission of a serious offense
72
33
64
58
36
26
289
Retirement – failure of selection for promotion
48
62
56
42
50
29
287
Death – battle casualty
59
45
39
72
42
29
286
Death – cause not specified
35
53
47
45
39
43
262
Death – nonbattle, other
47
49
40
45
26
42
249
Motivational problems (apathy)
41
31
32
37
44
41
226
Condition existing prior to service
50
62
39
36
21
11
219
Pregnancy
54
49
36
24
24
7
194
Court martial
24
36
31
31
37
25
184
Character or behavior disorder
23
21
13
26
23
13
119
Voluntary release – attend school or teach
16
19
23
18
21
19
116
Unqualified for active duty – other
13
13
4
20
22
12
84
Homosexuality
Death – nonbattle, disease
Dependency or hardship
3
16
12
11
13
10
65
11
11
8
10
9
11
60
4
12
15
6
6
3
46
Drugs
12
9
3
3
4
4
35
Involuntary release – maximum age or service
12
11
7
1
1
0
32
Alcoholism
5
4
2
10
2
2
25
Parenthood
4
3
2
6
3
2
20
Sexual perversion
7
3
4
2
2
1
19
Conscientious objector
2
6
2
0
4
3
17
Fraudulent entry
0
2
4
1
3
4
14
Civil court conviction
1
4
0
1
2
4
12
Failure to meet weight or body fat standards
4
0
2
0
1
5
12
Discreditable incidents – civilian or military
1
5
2
2
1
0
11
Security
0
2
0
2
3
0
7
Failure to meet minimum retention requirement
4
0
1
0
0
0
5
Good of service (discharge in lieu of court martial)
2
3
0
0
0
0
5
Pattern of minor disciplinary infractions
1
0
2
1
0
0
4
Voluntary release – in the national interest
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Involuntary release – temporary officer reverts to
enlisted status
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
18,454
19,788
19,336
22,412
16,907
15,524
112,421
Total
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and DOD data.
Page 41
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix III: Data on Reserve and National
Guard Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy
Appendix III: Data on Reserve and National
Guard Servicemembers Separated under the
Homosexual Conduct Policy
According to our analysis of DMDC data, 577 Reserve and National Guard
servicemembers were separated under the homosexual conduct policy
from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. 1 (See table 16.) The Reserve and
National Guard separations represent about 14 percent of the total
population of active, reserve, and guard servicemembers separated under
the homosexual conduct policy.
Table 16: Separations of Reserve and National Guard Servicemembers for Homosexual Conduct, by Fiscal Year and Military
Service, from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Fiscal year
Air Force
Reserve
Air National
a
Guard
Army National
Marine Corps
Guard Army Reserve
Reserve Navy Reserve
Total
2004
N/A
4
49
26
3
5
87
2005
N/A
7
50
30
13
4
104
2006
N/A
2
40
27
6
4
79
2007
N/A
3
58
33
15
4
113
2008
3
5
71
23
12
4
118
2009
0
2
52
15
7
0
76
Total
3
23
320
154
56
21
577
Percentage of totalb
1
4
55
27
10
4
100
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC, Reserve, and Guard data.
a
This information is not available (N/A) because according to officials in the Air National Guard, the Air
National Guard was only able to account for separated servicemembers from October 2007 to the
present because of the method used by the Air National Guard to document discharges.
b
Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.
1
These separations do not include separated servicemembers from Reserve and National
Guard components of the military services who were in active duty status for 31 or more
consecutive days.
Page 42
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix IV: Information on Critical
Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated
under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
Appendix IV: Information on Critical
Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated
under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
Most Common
Occupations Held by
Servicemembers
Table 17 lists the most common occupations held by separated
servicemembers, by service, from fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
Table 17: Most Common Critical Occupations Held by Separated Servicemembers, by Service, from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009
Service
Critical occupations
Air Force
Security forces
Army
Marine Corps
Number of
servicemembers
32
Air traffic control
8
Airborne cryptologic language analyst
6
Operations intelligence
5
Mideast crypto linguist
3
Communication-computer systems operations
3
Far East crypto linguist
2
Aircraft armament systems
2
Communications and information
2
Clinical nurse
2
Infantryman
190
Military police
120
Motor transport operator
114
Mental health specialist
69
Food service specialist
68
Health care specialist
59
Unit supply specialist
51
Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear specialist
34
Petroleum supply specialist
32
Signal support systems specialist
32
Administrative clerk
9
Rifleman
8
Personnel clerk
6
Motor vehicle operator
5
Field radio operator
4
Tactical network specialist
4
Telephone system/personal computer intermediate repairer
4
Page 43
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix IV: Information on Critical
Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated
under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
Service
Navy
Critical occupations
Number of
servicemembers
Military police
4
Food service specialist
3
Legal service specialist
3
Nuclear field (electronics technician, machinist’s mate, electrician’s
mate)
36
Master-at-arms
21
Operational specialist
15
Information systems technician
12
Fire controlman
7
Hospital corpsman
5
Gunner’s mate
4
Air traffic controller
3
Cryptologic technician interpretive
3
Aviation ordinanceman
2
Cryptologic technician technical
2
Sonar technician surface
2
Surface warfare officer
2
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC and service data.
Lengths of Service of
Separated
Servicemembers Who
Held Skills in Critical
Occupations
Approximately 472 servicemembers (33 percent) separated under the
homosexual conduct policy who held skills in critical occupations were
separated after 2 years or more of service, as shown in table 18.
Page 44
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix IV: Information on Critical
Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated
under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
Table 18: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Separated under the Homosexual Conduct Policy Who Held Skills in Critical
Occupations from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
Air Force
Army
Marine
Corps
Navy
Total
Less than 3 months
0
288
0
0
288
Within 3 to 6 months
4
138
0
3
145
Length of service
Number of servicemembers
Within 6 months to 1 year
25
192
9
22
248
Within 1 to 2 years
27
198
27
37
289
Two years or more
45
322
48
57
472
101
1,138
84
119
1,442
7
79
6
8
100
Less than 3 months
0
25
0
0
20
Within 3 to 6 months
4
12
0
3
10
Total
Percentage of total
a
Percentage of servicemembers
Within 6 months to 1 year
25
17
11
18
17
Within 1 to 2 years
27
17
32
31
20
Two years or more
45
28
57
48
33
100
100
100
100
100
Total
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
a
Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.
Lengths of Service of
Separated
Servicemembers Who
Held Skills in
Important Foreign
Languages
Approximately 11 servicemembers (48 percent) separated under the
homosexual conduct policy who held skills in important foreign languages
were separated after 2 years or more of service, as shown in table 19.
Page 45
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix IV: Information on Critical
Occupations and Important Foreign
Languages for Servicemembers Separated
under DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy
Table 19: Lengths of Service of Servicemembers Who Held Skills in Important Foreign Languages from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2009
Air Force
Army
Marine
Corps
Navy
Total
Less than 3 months
0
0
0
0
0
Within 3 to 6 months
0
0
1
1
2
Length of service
Number of servicemembers
Within 6 months to 1 year
0
0
1
5
6
Within 1 to 2 years
0
2
0
2
4
Two years or more
1
5
0
5
11
Total
1
7
2
13
23
Percentage of total
4
30
9
57
100
Less than 3 months
0
0
0
0
0
Within 3 to 6 months
0
0
50
8
9
Within 6 months to 1 year
0
0
50
38
26
Within 1 to 2 years
0
29
0
15
17
Two years or more
100
71
0
38
48
100
100
100
100
100
Percentage of servicemembersa
Total
Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.
a
Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.
Page 46
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Zina D. Merritt, (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov
Staff
Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report
were Elizabeth C. McNally, Assistant Director; Clarine S. Allen; Christina
E. Bruff; Grace A. Coleman; K. Nicole Harms; Grant M. Mallie; Charles W.
Perdue; Steven R. Putansu; Terry L. Richardson; Amie M. Steele;
Christopher W. Turner; Jack B. Wang; Erik S. Wilkins-McKee; and
Kimberly Y. Young.
Page 47
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products
Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory
and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and
Regional Proficiency. GAO-09-568. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.
Defense Management: Preliminary Observations on DOD’s Plans for
Developing Language and Cultural Awareness Capabilities.
GAO-09-176R. Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2008.
Military Personnel: Evaluation Methods Linked to Anticipated Outcomes
Needed to Inform Decisions on Army Recruitment Incentives.
GAO-08-1037R. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2008.
Military Personnel: Strategic Plan Needed to Address Army’s Emerging
Officer Accession and Retention Challenges. GAO-07-224. Washington,
D.C.: January 19, 2007.
Differing Scope and Methodology in GAO and University of California
Reports Account for Variations in Cost Estimates for Homosexual
Conduct Policy. GAO-06-909R. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2006.
Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations on Recruiting and
Retention Issues within the U.S. Armed Forces. GAO-05-419T.
Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2005.
Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to
DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated.
GAO-05-299. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2005.
Military Personnel: Observations Related to Reserve Compensation,
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, and Mail Delivery to Deployed Troops.
GAO-04-582T. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs More Effective Controls to Better Assess
the Progress of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program. GAO-04-86.
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2003.
Military Personnel: Management and Oversight of Selective
Reenlistment Bonus Program Needs Improvement. GAO-03-149.
Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2002.
Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls. GAO-02-375. Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2002.
Page 48
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
Related GAO Products
Military Personnel: Perceptions of Retention-Critical Personnel Are
Similar to Those of Other Enlisted Personnel. GAO-01-785. Washington,
D.C.: June 28, 2001.
Military Attrition: Better Data, Coupled with Policy Changes, Could
Help the Services Reduce Early Separations. GAO/NSIAD-98-213.
Washington, D.C.: September 15, 1998.
DOD Training: Many DOD Linguists Do Not Meet Minimum Proficiency
Standards. GAO/NSIAD-94-191. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 1994.
Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign
Countries. GAO/NSIAD-93-215. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 1993.
Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality.
GAO/NSIAD-92-98. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 1992.
Defense Force Management: Statistics Related to DOD’s Policy on
Homosexuality. GAO/NSIAD-92-98S. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 1992.
(351442)
Page 49
GAO-11-170 Military Personnel
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
Please Print on Recycled Paper